Thanks to the great organization parentalrights.org, I received this article in Mother Jones magazine on the UN Child Treaty. As usual, Mother Jones (a clearly “progressive” magazine – Mother Jones was a early union organizer and agitator) scorned the opposition to the treaty in the Senate:

Their main objections? Under the treaty, “parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children,” the government couldn’t sentence teenagers to life in prison, kids could get sex-ed and birth control if they wanted it, and–gasp!–children would be able to choose their own religion, according to a fact sheet published by ParentalRights.org, an outfit headed up by Michael Farris, the homeschooling movement’s legal mastermind. The group is dedicated to winning passage of the parental rights amendment.

I have given a detailed legal analysis of this bad UN (My regular readers know what this is!) treaty here previous at Virginia Right.

But, see if these selections are persuasive answers to the objections Mother Jones makes:

1. No spanking:

Look at Article 19, section 1:

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

“All forms of physical or mental violence” could include reasonable corporal punishment which is recognized in Virginia Law as a parental right.

2. The government can’t sentence a teenager to life in prison:

This has already happened. See my prior article about the Graham case.

3. Mandatory sex-ed and birth control (not to mention abortion rights) OVER THE OBJECTION of parents:

Article 16 will forever enshrine in our law the right of a minor to get an abortion or birth control without any parental objection allowed. Forget ever overruling Roe v. Wade.

Don’t take my word for it – read article 16:

No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

That also prevents stopping bad boyfriends or searching rooms, too.

4. Choose their own religion?

Look at Article 14:

States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

What’s the big deal about the right of a child to not be hit or not be forced to embrace a religion (s)he believes to be evil? The real problem will be the implementation of the treaty. It obviously would force many of its member states to put in place some serious programs of parental education so adults know that any imbecile can reproduce but that it takes a lot of hard work to responsibly raise children. Many parents who beat their children would not do so if only they were educated to properly counter their children’s provocations, just like the police is trained to not use violence on suspects no matter how obnoxiously they behave.